Daniel Roberts vs. Julio Paulino set for UFC 116 preliminary card

A welterweight bout between Daniel Roberts (9-1 MMA, 0-1 UFC) and Julio Paulino (17-3 MMA, 0-1 UFC) – two competitors fighting for their lives in the organization – will be part of July’s UFC 116 event in Las Vegas.

Roberts announced the fight via Twitter on Friday, and MMAjunkie.com (www.mmajunkie.com) has since confirmed with a source close to the event that it will be part of the night’s un-aired preliminary card.

UFC 116 takes place July 3 at the MGM Grand Garden Arena in Las Vegas and airs on pay-per-view.

Roberts, an NAIA All-American wrestler, signed with the UFC earlier this year after posting a 9-0 record (with seven submission victories) while fighting throughout Oklahoma. The Tulsa-based fighter then replaced an injured Anthony Johnson and fought John Howard at UFC on Versus 1 in March. However, Roberts suffered a knockout loss just two minutes into the first round for his first career defeat.

Paulino, meanwhile, also signed with the UFC earlier this year. His contract came after a successful run in his homestate of Alaska and the Alaska Fighting Championship. After a seven-fight win streak, which included defeats of notables such as UFC vets Rob Yundt and Terry Martin, he replaced an injured Rob Kimmons and fought Mike Pierce at UFC on Versus 1 and suffered a lopsided unanimous-decision loss.

Both competitors need a win at UFC 116 to avoid a contract termination.

The Latest

In this week’s Trading Shots, Danny Downes and Ben Fowlkes look at Ronda Rousey’s 34-second victory over Bethe Correia at UFC 190 and try to put it into terms that capture the moment without getting swept away by it.

A total of 26 fighters got their chance to shine on Saturday as part of UFC 190 at Rio de Janeiro’s HSBC Arena. Now that UFC 190 is in the books, it’s time to commence MMAjunkie’s “Three Stars” ceremony.

The man known for cranking submissions to the point of injury added eye-gouging to his repertoire. But is the controversy of Rousimar Palhares too essential to his bizarre, awful appeal for his employers to take any meaningful action against him?